All of these authorizers understand that their major
responsibility to the public is to monitor their
schools' academic performance and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Beyond
carrying out their basic oversight responsibilities
as defined in the charter law, these offices have
found that ongoing and close monitoring allows
them to help schools improve and helps them
to make well-informed decisions about whether
to renew or revoke a charter.

Each authorizer monitors its schools using a
variety of methods. All require some amount
of documentation, including annual reports,
evidence of legal and regulatory compliance,
student assessment results, and nonacademic
data, such as student attendance rates and the
results of parent satisfaction surveys. They also
use site visits to gather additional information
about compliance and students' experience in
their charter schools. In each of these authorizing
offices, both document collection and the
site visits are informed by the office's philosophy
of charter oversight. Leaders have thought
through the appropriate balance between their
oversight responsibilities and their duty to respect
charter schools' autonomy, and they train
their staff members to respect this balance every
day in interactions with schools.

Use information and technology to
streamline compliance

Charter schools are subject to many regulations
imposed by state law.15 Each of these authorizers
has found ways to streamline compliance
and reporting requirements to make their state's
demands more achievable for their schools,
which tend to have smaller staffs and fewer
leaders. For example, one of the ways these
offices collect the information needed to fulfill
their oversight responsibilities while respecting
schools' autonomy is to be very clear up front about the information they require (such as annual
reports) and the form in which they expect
to receive it. New school operators know that
as charter school leaders, they will be held accountable
in ways that traditional district schools
are not. For example, if they do not meet the
terms of their charter, charter schools face possible
closure. Therefore, many of these leaders
report that one of the most important things
their authorizer can do to help them meet their
goals is to communicate their expectations up
front. Chicago has found that providing information
about accountability requirements early
on has an additional benefit. According to Katie
Weaver, the director of accountability of the Office of New Schools, "Giving the information
to the schools up front really promotes their
autonomy. This way they don't have to call us
at the last minute to figure out how something
is going to work. They can go back to the documentation
they received early on and find the
information and the contact person they can
call to get more information."

EXHIBIT A

Re: [Name of Public School Academy] Educational Service Providers (ESP) Agreement with [Name of ESP]

Ladies & Gentlemen:

In my capacity as legal counsel to [Name of Public School Academy] (the "Academy"), I have represented the Academy in connection with the proposed Educational Service Provide agreement between the Academy and [Name of ESP]. As Academy legal counsel, I have reviewed copies of the following documents:

The Educational Service Provider Agreement, dated as of [Month, Day, 1999], (the "Agreement" ), between the Academy and [name of ESP].

The Contract to Charter a Public School Academy and Related Documents, dated [Month, Day, 1999], (the "Contract"), issued by the Central Michigan University Board of Trustees to the Academy.

I have also reviewed other documents, instruments and Academy Board minutes related to the Provider of the Academy which are required or have been requested by the University Board prior to the issuance of the Contract. I have also reviewed the articles of incorporation and bylaws of the Academy, and originals and copies of such other documents, records, and statements of facts as deemed relevant, and I have made such other investigations and inquiries, as I have determined necessary for the purpose of rendering the opinions set fourth herein.

Based upon the foregoing, I am of the opinion that:

The Academy is a Michigan nonprofit corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Michigan and has full power and authority to enter into the Agreement.

The Academy's execution, delivery and performance of the Agreement does not violate any term or provision in the Policies and to the best of my knowledge after due inquiry, the Academy Board has compiled with all terms and provision in the Policies.

The Academy's execution, delivery and performance of the Agreement does not permit or require an improper delegation of the Academy Board's:

statutory and fiduciary responsibilities under applicable law; or

obligations and duties under the Contract.

In addition, the Agreement does not conflict with any of the provisions of the Contract.

Very truly yours,[Name of Academy Legal Counsel]

Education Service Provider Policies
Page 5 of 5

Staff members in the Massachusetts office have
invested a considerable amount of time and
thought in revising and improving the materials
they give to schools to explain their oversight
and monitoring system. The Opening Procedures
Handbook is an example of their guidance,
rich with detailed information about what
schools need to do in order to meet a host of
state regulations and requirements. In order to
make such guidance more accessible and useful,
staff members have included task checklists,
due dates, and sidebars with crucial information
highlighted. (See fig. 11 for an excerpted checklist.)
Written in a straightforward style, the documents
avoid heavy use of jargon and frequently
refer readers who need more detail about a specific topic to additional sources of information.
These sources include written materials as well
as contacts within the Massachusetts office who
can answer questions about a specific topic.

The Massachusetts office also has produced
several documents that explain how it monitors
schools to see that they are meeting the terms of
their charters. These documents are intended to
clarify the schools' responsibilities from the outset.
One document gives readers an overview
of the entire monitoring process. Organized in a
series of action steps, the Guidelines for Writing
Charter School Accountability Plans16 takes the
reader from the beginning of the process, submitting
an application, through writing an accountability
plan, submitting annual reports on
the school's progress in meeting accountability
goals, preparing for annual site visits, and finally
applying for charter renewal and participating
in a lengthy renewal inspection.

Authorizers in Michigan have considerable oversight
responsibilities, in large part because state
law requires charter schools to adhere to many
of the same regulations and policies that govern
traditional district schools. To ease the reporting
burden on its schools, the Charter Schools office at CMU commissioned the design of an electronic
system to track and maintain information
regarding schools' compliance. The Authorizers
Oversight Information System (AOIS) allows authorizers
and schools access to an online compliance
recordkeeping system, provides a daily
account of a school's compliance status, and
helps track school performance and academic
achievement. AOIS is also an electronic filing
system, so every document associated with a
school is readily available from any location.

Submit Board-approved school calendar and sample student schedule to the Charter School Office for review.

The Ferris State University (FSU) charter office
adopted the AOIS system in 2003. One of the
first documents that FSU-authorized schools
receive after they are granted a charter is a
copy of the year's "Master Calendar," a comprehensive
document that contains every compliance
and reporting deadline that the school
is expected to meet throughout the year. As
one school principal remarked, "This calendar
is what keeps us on top of knowing what's
coming and when. Otherwise, I'd have to be
thinking about it all the time. The master calendar
makes it so much easier." Using the AOIS
system, schools submit their compliance documentation
electronically and receive periodic
reminders through an electronic calendar—for
example, "In seven days, your board minutes
will be due." FSU also reviews monthly bank
check registers from each school, and requires
a quarterly financial statement. Both are submitted
electronically by each school and managed
at FSU in the AOIS software. The electronic
system enables FSU staff to quickly identify
schools that are experiencing academic, financial,
or compliance challenges.

With regard to academic performance, FSU also
communicated clear expectations for student
testing and annual performance goals. It makes
extensive use of a Web site provided by the
state department of education to track student
scores on Michigan Education Assessment Program
tests. With up-to-date performance data at
their fingertips, FSU staff members monitor student
achievement gains at each of their schools
and can quickly identify and assist those schools
that face academic challenges.

The SUNY Institute-authorized charter schools
also receive a master calendar at the beginning of their charter term that provides a deadline
for every document and a date for each site
visit that is required, by both the SUNY Institute
and the New York State Education Department,
during the course of the school's charter
term. Evidence of compliance with regulatory
and legal requirements (pertaining to facilities,
enrollment, grades served, open meetings,
teacher certification, and NCLB requirements)
is reviewed each year in the form of annual
reports. The SUNY Institute provides sample reports
for schools to follow and collects the majority
of documents in hard copy form. Because
it shares oversight duties with the New York
State Education Department, the SUNY Institute
also works to alert its charter schools to issues
to which the New York State Education Department
pays close attention to, such as fingerprinting
of staff, so that when the information is
required, the charter schools will be ready.

"Once we have approved a school, it really
is our school. We want to work with them.
The whole goal is that they are effective.
That's why we try to be as transparent
as we can from the very beginning, treat
schools with respect, and have reciprocity
in the relationship to the degree that we
can as their authorizer."—Jennifer Sneed,
Senior Vice President of the SUNY Charter
Schools Institute

Use site visits strategically

While these organizations collect a lot of information
regarding performance and compliance through electronic and paper submissions, relying
solely on written documentation would not
provide them with a comprehensive view of their
schools. The majority of these offices also use focused
site visits to gather information that is only
apparent on-site at the school. The offices differed
in the number and timing of visits, but most agreed
that the visits were an effective monitoring tool.

The VOA of MN charter office conducts more
site visits than many other offices—four per year.
Two visits are informal, and two visits are formal
in that the reviewers keep to a set protocol and
follow up with a written report. According to
Justin Testerman of VOA of MN, when he walks
into a school for a visit, he is "looking to see
if the reality is consistent with the information
in the reports and other materials I have been
reading." often, he can determine this quickly
through observation. Is the student work on the
walls regularly updated? Are students engaged
and attentive? If the answer to such questions is
no, he will bring it to the attention of the school
leaders and ask them to explain why there is a
discrepancy in information provided in reports
and site visit observations.

California's charter division has invested a great
deal of staff time in refining its site visit protocols.
Because of limitations on the office's travel budget
and the great distance between Sacramento and
most board-authorized charter schools, schools
typically receive one preopening site visit and
one additional site visit per year from a member
of California's charter division staff. These site
visits follow a detailed protocol that has been
developed with the help of external consultants.
Staff members report that this one visit per year
provides them with the information they need to
make sound accountability decisions. The division also uses Web-based software to provide a
virtual forum for state-authorized charter schools
to check in with division staff and access twoway
technical assistance.

California's preopening site visit mainly addresses
the adequacy of the facility: Will it effectively
and safely hold students and staff on
the first day of school? (See fig. 12 for an excerpt
from CDE's preopening site inspection
checklist.) Subsequent visits assess the school's
progress in governance and organizational management,
education performance, fiscal operations,
and fulfillment of the terms of the charter.
The primary purpose of these visits is to assess
the student achievement plan, perform a facility
inspection, and review records (e.g., student
attendance, financial, personnel). Visits typically
involve an interview with the school director,
staff, students, parents, and board members, and
focus on teaching and learning through observation
of classroom instruction. Written reports
from the site visits inform the California office's
decisions about charter renewal. If the school is
having trouble, the frequency of visits generally
increases.

Rather than rely on internal staff to conduct site
visits, FSU's authorizing office hires four "field
representatives"—retired principals, administrators,
and district superintendents—to conduct
site visits. These field representatives are responsible
for four schools each, and they conduct at
least six site visits to each of their schools per
year, attend at least six meetings of the schools'
boards per year, and submit written reports to
the FSU authorizing staff with information about
the school's climate, classroom instruction, parental
involvement, facility conditions, and any
concerns that require immediate attention or continued monitoring. In addition, staff members
from FSU also visit the school informally, both
announced and unannounced. In all, schools see
someone from FSU, either a field representative
or a full-time staff member, at least 12 times per
year, on average. The use of field representatives
allows FSU staff members to have a good sense
of what is happening in its schools without having
to dedicate office staff to constant travel. (See
fig. 13 for field representative's job description.)

Site has separate bus loading, parking
areas, and parent drop off areas.

__Yes __No

Facilities operation permits and
certificates, including evidence of
inspection by a structural engineer, fire
marshal and occupancy certificates,
zoning variances, building permits, etc.
have been secured.

__Yes __No

Site has good access and dispersal
roads.

__Yes __No

Facilities are sufficient to accommodate
The administrative and business
Functions, including the storage of
Student and other records, reports, and
documents.

__Yes __No

Facilities meet requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act,
Including (1) accessible routes from
Outside the school to entry and from
the school entry to all the other buildings,
and (2) stairs, ramps, toilets and
signage that meet accessibility
standards.

__Yes __No

Site and facilities are situated to
minimize student contact with adults
who do not have appropriate clearances
as required by Education Cod Section
44237.

__Yes __No

Relocatable facilities are single story
and meet local seismic safety
requirements.

The charter school staff of the mayor's office in
Indianapolis also uses external teams for many
of its school visits. The authorizing staff members
conduct an initial preopening site visit to
allow them to get to know the school administration,
see the facility, and determine whether
the school is in compliance to open. Thereafter,
a group of experts (including current and
former teachers, administrators, and district superintendents)
from the Center of Excellence
in Leadership of Learning at the University of
Indianapolis conducts formal site visits to each
school annually. The office uses these external
teams because staff members have found that
schools are more likely to use the improvement-
oriented feedback they receive when the
schools do not feel they are being targeted by
the authorizing staff. Recurring visits by the
same team gives schools an incentive to address
problems because they know the team
will be coming back to see improvements. Authorizing
staff also frequently drop in at schools
unannounced for informal visits or to pick up
paperwork. These visits are helpful for fostering
communication, bringing issues to the office staff's attention, and reminding schools of
their upcoming deadlines.

Several schools report that their authorizer's site
visits, when well structured and announced in
advance, serve as a recurring incentive to reflect
on school performance and collect information
schools themselves will use. Unannounced and
less formal site visits also allow school leaders
and staff an opportunity to display their accomplishments
and ask questions or share their
concerns with the authorizing staff.

Approach oversight with a sense of purpose
and respect for schools' autonomy

Each of these authorizers has carefully developed
a point of view about how to balance
adequate oversight with respect for schools'
autonomy. Their approaches are different, but
each office has an oversight philosophy that
promotes the development of a monitoring
process that is thorough but also safeguards
schools' freedom to experiment with new approaches
to governance, curriculum, and instruction.
Having a philosophy about how
to manage the monitoring-autonomy balance
also has allowed these offices to develop their
own approaches to another complex factor
that is inherent in the authorizer's role: how to
balance staff members' natural desire to offer
support with the need to maintain their role as
objective evaluators.

At FSU, staff members are so aware of the need
to maintain this balance that they regularly refer
to it as "The Line," which is their way of describing
the border between adequate oversight
and infringing upon schools' autonomy as well
as between providing necessary assistance to
schools versus running the schools' day-to-day
operations. This "line" comes up during every staff meeting and is a part of every policy decision
in the office. Before providing assistance,
for example, staff members ask themselves
whether they are setting a precedent: Is this
something they should do for the school or is
this something the school should do for itself?
Staff members acknowledge that the line differs
with every school; those that run into trouble
receive more assistance and greater oversight
from the authorizer, while those that are doing
well require less. Staff members believe that
this balance between oversight and autonomy
in every policy decision and in their relationship
with each individual school helps FSU maintain
a strong and healthy authorizing relationship
with its schools.

Figure 13. Ferris State University Field Representative Job Description

POSITION TITLE:

Charter Schools Office Field Representative(s)

SUPERSEDES:

New

EFFECTIVE DATE:

January 2, 2003

DEPARTMENT(S):

Charter Schools

F.L.S.A.:

At Will

GROUP:

Part Time

SUMMARY OF FUNCTION: Represent the Ferris State University Charter Schools Office to public school academies authorized by Ferris State University's Boar of Trustees. Field Representative(s) will attend academy board of directors meetings, visit observe academy classrooms and administrative operations and submit written reports to the Charter Schools Office.

CHARACTERISTIC DUTIES include the following . Other duties may be assigned.

Essential

During the fiscal year, attend at least six (6) board of director's meetings for each assigned academy.

Submit a written summary report of each board of directors meeting attended within five (5) days of the meeting.

During the academic year (September - June), make at least six (6) visits to each assigned academy and observe the instructional process and/or administrative procedures.

Submit a written summary report of each visit within five (5) days of the visit.

Immediately report to the Charter Schools Office any activity, that the Field Representatives believes, may be illegal, inappropriate, a safety hazard, or other, unusual circumstance. Such a report should be made by telephone, fax, or e-mail, without delay. A written summery of the circumstances prompting the report is to be submitted within five (5) days.

III. RESPONSIBILITIES: Reports directly to the Director of Charter Schools. Responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of designated information. Performs all duties in compliance with applicable University policies and procedures and state and federal requirements.

IV. REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS: To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill, and/or ability required. Any equivalent combination of education, training and experience which provides the required knowledge, abilities and skills may be considered. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.

Work Experience
Minimum: Three years of classroom teaching experience and demonstrated experience with managerial and organizational responsibilities in K-12 education.

This description is intended to indicate the kinds of tasks and levels of work difficulty that will be required of this position. It is not intended to limit or in any way to modify the right of any supervisor to assign, direct and control the work of employees under his/her supervision. The use of a particular illustration shall not be used to exclude non-listed duties of similar kind or level of difficulty.

At the Massachusetts Charter School Office,
staff members face a similar struggle to preserve
their objectivity as authorizers and not
step into too much of a supportive role with
schools. Schools frequently call individual
staff members for help with everything from
filling out the application to selecting an external
auditor. When faced with such questions,
Director Mary Street advises staff members
to resist the urge to offer advice. As she
defines it, their role is to "hold a mirror up to
the schools." That is, all of their monitoring
processes are designed to help schools see
their own strengths and weaknesses, but not
to offer them specific advice about how they
should respond to these challenges. Therefore,
to do their job well, staff members need
to focus on improving these processes so they
can provide the schools with the most accurate
"mirror" possible. According to Street, offering
specific advice not only compromises
her staff's role as evaluators, but also means
her office could be held accountable down the line for decisions that the schools make
because of her staff's advice.

In Chicago, charter schools themselves are very
definitive about the kind of assistance they request
from their authorizer. Beatriz Rendon,
executive director of the Department of New
School Support in Chicago, offers this analysis:
"As a group, the charter schools in Chicago are
very aware of their autonomy." According to
Rendon, several of the schools have expressed
concerns that the most recent staff reorganization
in her office might lead to a loss of independence
on the part of the schools. "They
were really afraid," she reports, "that we would
come in and start telling them you have to do
this kind of curriculum; you have to do this
professional development." As a result of this
climate, charter schools in Chicago are less likely
to turn to CPS for advice about their school
programs and more likely to ask about compliance
issues. The majority of the phone calls the
charter office receives are inquiries about issues
such as funding, facilities, or special education
requirements. Rarely does a school call to ask
for advice or feedback related to the school's
educational program.

Staff members at SUNY Institute say they are
very conscious of the dilemma of finding the
right balance between providing oversight versus
going too far and impinging on a school's
autonomy. With every report, piece of documentation,
and site visit they require of their
schools, the SUNY Institute staff members ask
themselves, "Is this [information] convenient
for us, or is it good for the school?" Over the
years they have been tempted to increase their
compliance requirements and lengthen their
site visit protocol in order to gather additional information about their schools' day-to-day operations,
but they have tried to resist this temptation
by consistently revisiting the purposes of
their oversight: to ensure that schools are meeting
their performance, regulatory, and legal
obligations and to provide information that the
schools can use to help themselves improve.

All of these authorizers require different levels
of reporting about the schools' financial condition.
At one end of the spectrum, officials in the
California charter division require schools to
submit a preliminary budget, two interim budgets,
and annual audits. other offices require a
bit more reporting: the SUNY Institute-authorized
schools must submit evidence of fiscal
compliance periodically throughout the term
of their charter (including a five-year projected
budget, one-year cash flow projection, annual
audits, and quarterly financial statements). Requirements
in Indianapolis are similar: Schools
are required to submit quarterly financial reports
to the mayor's office and conduct an annual audit.
Staff members in the mayor's office review
these data closely to determine whether or not
the school is financially sound. FSU monitors
schools even more frequently and closely. Staff
members there review monthly check registries
from each school and require quarterly financial
statements and annual budgets and audits.
At 36 months into their charter term, schools
also must submit a statement regarding their
assets and liabilities. In order to reduce the reporting
burden that this could potentially place
on schools, staff members at FSU have focused
their efforts on developing an electronic reporting
system that allows schools to submit all required
documents automatically.